BFRO Investigator Matt Pruitt Chimes In On Ape-vs-Human Debate [Bigfoot Debate]
As the debate about whether or not Bigfoot is more human or more ape rages on, it's easy to get lost in the discussion and forget about the real question: What is a Sasquatch?
Matt Pruitt, expedition organizer and investigator for the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, posted an interesting article about the current debate. Rather than siding with either camp, Matt found a middle ground and concluded that Sasquatches are unique, and should be perceived and respected as such:
One of the most polarizing issues among sasquatch researchers and enthusiasts revolves around the (as yet to be decided) taxonomic designation of the species, or what sasquatches are.
Although the issue is indeed of great importance to me, I try not to invest too much emotionally into the argument. I happen to take the stance that sasquatches are simply sasquatches. If that seems a bit vague, allow me to explain...
The common version of this argument usually finds researchers battling over whether sasquatches are humans or apes. Superficially, this argument is flawed because humans actually are apes; we are in the order of Primates, and in the family of Hominidae.
For many of the people actively engaging in this debate, the argument is more of an emotional one than an intellectual one. The people who believe that sasquatches are "human" feel that the "ape" proponents are denigrating the creatures, and lowering their regard for them. The "ape" proponents themselves typically take the stance that the "human" perspective is too romantic and grandiose a notion.
Sasquatches may be the closest living relative to homo sapiens sapiens (us) on the planet. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they were taxonomically designated in the genus homo. But, they are not us; no more than we are them.
In other words: Humans are NOT sasquatches, therefore sasquatches are NOT human.
They are sasquatches.
You can read the full article here.
Not trying to step on toes or point fingers but none of this was an issue until it was "leaked" from the Ketchum project and later validated by none other than her. Which is cool. But what is funny is how all the hard core ape guys are now back peddling and saying we were still right... Humans are in fact apes as well. Who cares is my point. The important thing is getting them recognized so they can be protected from incidents like the Sierra shootings and similar events. Then we can worry about who,what,why,and how. Honestly I don't think they need anything from us though they've done just fine on their own...
ReplyDeleteOf course. It shouldn't even be an issue. They are not human. They are not ape. They are something else. They are a different and unique creature. Claiming to know an arguing otherwise is an arrogant waste of time.
ReplyDeleteSeem to be stating the obvious. Can't get into any trouble with this viewpoint, and I concur.
ReplyDeleteChuck
I think it's going to come down to how much closer is Squatch to human or ape? Whichever one DNA-wise it appears to be closer to, it will be treated in accordance. If it is closer to ape, it is in a zoo. But, what do we do if it's closer to human? Reservations lands?
ReplyDeleteIf closer to human, I think we should do nothing differently, except make it a crime to kill them. Rounding them up for reservations would be like trying to herd cats - cats that hide from you.
ReplyDeleteAnon in Texas,
ReplyDeleteGuess we'll all find out soon enough. I like the "cats" comment above. Yes, cats... 800lb, sneaky cats..
CG
Good luck with the reservation thing. How many thousands of HUMANS died when we tried that. On both sides of that brilliant idea. People thought the Indians were a formidable foe, wait till we piss these guys off and force them to get nasty. An 800lb+ opponent that is more stealthy than any ninja or special forces unit in the world. You could walk by one within 5 feet and never know they where even there until he or she tears you limb from limb with their bare hands. We may be able to over power them with sheer numbers but at what cost? That's one suicide endeavor I don't want to be a part of.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with what he is saying, his last statement is a complete fail.
ReplyDeleteIt's like saying "A rectangle is not a square, therefore a square is not a rectangle." - FAIL.
Again, I agree with his overall point.
Autumn has a good point here, if we're all apes so what, that's not important. It'll all depend on which ape species the Sasquatches are closest related to; us the human ape or the animal ape. I think they're a people of some kind, how can you even call something an animal or animal ape anymore if there's language involved? And that does seem to be the case here, that would indeed make them homo-something. There's little doubt to me anyway, the just-a-big-upright-gorilla animal theory's old and out. There's more to it than that, it's a whole new unknown homo species, the days of saying it's no more important than a bear are over.
ReplyDeleteIs Matt related to Hollywood special effects guy and stunt man Jeff Pruitt, one of those known Bigfoot disbelievers flocking the movie industry? Just thinking it's curious with the same last name.
ReplyDeleteI think that it isn't a question of who it is related to as much as intelligence. I personally think it will be a new branch of primate completely
ReplyDelete